[CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws

Tue Aug 18 16:42:26 UTC 2015

THanks for bringing this up.  Way more than 30 countries, I would suggest.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-08-18 7:54, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Never mind that the 2009 language would appear to contravene Data 
> Protection laws in 30 or more countries . .
>
>
> On 18/08/15 12:35, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has the suggested modified language been floated yet?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>> I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support
>>> such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another
>>> related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to
>>> their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>> For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform
>>>> Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate,
>>>> though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of
>>>> accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall
>>>> effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users
>>>> of the Internet
>>>>
>>>> During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be
>>>> unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into
>>>> ICANN’s Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the
>>>> myriad of “larger” governance issues included in the CCWG proposal,
>>>> so some may wonder why this merits attention.  I put “larger” in
>>>> quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance
>>>> and everything else is subordinate.  Well, yes, governance issues are
>>>> commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an
>>>> organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the
>>>> Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to
>>>> the substance of what we do.
>>>>
>>>> Let me make it clear that we’re committed to improving and
>>>> strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it,
>>>> and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois
>>>> review could impede long-needed improvements.  See the end of this
>>>> message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over
>>>> the past few years.  In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations
>>>> into ICANN’s Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and
>>>> supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have
>>>> set for ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> The AoC[2] language  regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in
>>>> 2009 states:
>>>>
>>>>> 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy
>>>> relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy
>>>> requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely,
>>>> unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS
>>>> information, including registrant, technical, billing, and
>>>> administrative contact information.
>>>>
>>>> These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody
>>>> the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory
>>>> system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that
>>>> improvement is merely a matter of enforcement.  I do not believe it
>>>> is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this
>>>> assumption into ICANN’s Bylaws.
>>>>
>>>> The current wording is tied to the original  may I say “ancient?” 
>>>> model that is sorely in need of overhaul.  I am of the strong opinion
>>>> that we must not import into ICANN’s Bylaws, the words drafted six
>>>> years ago.  I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the
>>>> existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the
>>>> system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that
>>>> language.
>>>>
>>>> Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the
>>>> current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact
>>>> information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties
>>>> that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD
>>>> directory services to evolve.
>>>>
>>>> We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent
>>>> of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be
>>>> committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of
>>>> significant improvements that may require structural changes to the
>>>> entire system.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Crocker
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors
>>>>
>>>> ==========================================================
>>>>
>>>> Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to
>>>> strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward
>>>> possible structural improvements.
>>>>
>>>> •   Board Working Group—Board created a new "Board Working Group on
>>>> Registration Data Directory Services” to support WHOIS as a strategic
>>>> priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with
>>>> GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and
>>>> liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team.
>>>>
>>>> •   Board-Initiated Policy Development—Board adopted a “Process
>>>> Framework” developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO
>>>> PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing
>>>> access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for
>>>> protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as
>>>> input/foundation for new gTLD policy.
>>>>
>>>> •   Next Generation Registration Directory Service—Expert Working
>>>> Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board
>>>> direction, issued their report, “A Next-Generation Registration
>>>> Directory Service (RDS”), after exhaustive research and community
>>>> consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD
>>>> registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace
>>>> today’s WHOIS system.
>>>>
>>>> •   Preliminary Issue Report—To move forward with the PDP on
>>>> Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS
>>>> (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council
>>>> and is now open for public comment
>>>>
>>>> •   Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS—In 2012 the Board adopted a
>>>> two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first
>>>> WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce
>>>> existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to
>>>> WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to
>>>> determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting,
>>>> maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve
>>>> as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP.
>>>>
>>>> •   Strategic Priority—WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN’s Strategic Plan
>>>> and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets.
>>>>
>>>> •   RAA— Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement,
>>>> which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such
>>>> as stricter validation and verification requirements.
>>>>
>>>> •   Registry Agreements— Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement
>>>> requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS
>>>> improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry
>>>> agreements.
>>>>
>>>> •   New IETF Protocol—IETF’s WEIRDS finalized the new Registration
>>>> Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS
>>>> protocol.
>>>>
>>>> •   Privacy & Proxy Services—A public comment period recently closed
>>>> on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to
>>>> the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has
>>>> committed to developing and implementing such a program.
>>>>
>>>> •   Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info—A public comment
>>>> period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO’s PDP on
>>>> Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD
>>>> non-ASCII script contact information.
>>>>
>>>> •   WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System—Work is ongoing to develop a
>>>> WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot
>>>> Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year.
>>>>
>>>> [1] See
>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community